Saga’s Enbrook Homes Plan Revives Folkestone Redevelopment Row
shepwayvox
Saga says homes on “under-utilised” land at Enbrook Park could help fund the repair of The Pavilion and keep the Sandgate headquarters sustainable. But this is not Enbrook’s first housing rodeo — and the history comes with flats, bungalows, Wimpy, prior approval, and one famous “not a threat” threat.
Here we go again at Enbrook Park, where the language is soft, the land is green, and the word “homes” has once more wandered into the room wearing a hi-vis jacket and a community-consultation smile. Saga has revealed plans to explore residential development on part of its 27-acre Sandgate headquarters site, with chief executive Mike Hazell – pictured -saying the company will need to look at housing on “under-utilised parts of the estate” to fund work on The Pavilion and support long-term maintenance.
Saga’s pitch is not, on its face, outrageous. The company says The Pavilion — the former dining-room, canteen and creche building — has fallen into “serious disrepair”, and wants to turn the 31,000 sq ft space into a “vibrant space for Saga as well as the community”. Mr Hazell says the aim is a “welcoming, accessible space that brings people together, celebrates the park’s heritage, and reflects our renewed commitment to Folkestone”. All very lovely. The bunting has practically stapled itself to the consultation boards.
But the hard facts are these. Saga says daily staff numbers have dropped from about 1,000 a day to between 400 and 500, and that since returning to Enbrook Park the headquarters has seen a dramatic fall in use from supporting 5,000 colleagues to between 400 and 500. It says the business has changed, working patterns have changed, and “we can’t run it in the same way we did in the past”. In other words, the post-Covid office has shrunk; the estate has not.
The company also says “nothing has been decided”, that it is “way too early to talk numbers”, and that the number of homes is unclear because Saga is “open to exploring a range of possibilities”. That is planning-speak for: please don’t count the flats yet, the abacus is still in a locked drawer.
However, Shepway Vox readers will know this isn’t the first time Enbrook Park has been eyed for housing. It isn’t even the second. Shepway Vox reported in February 2023 that Saga had received “prior approval” in 2021 to convert the Enbrook building into 60 flats, although that permission has since expired. The precise numbers may shift between documents and reports, but the central point does not: the idea of housing at Enbrook Park is not new. It has history, and quite a lot of it.
Nor does the history stop there. Shepway Vox reported that in 1987 Saga Holidays PLC submitted planning applications for bungalows and three-storey flats near the war memorial and Enbrook Road, plus a further 177 flats in blocks up to eight storeys behind St Paul’s Church, under SH/87/0766–0779 inclusive, and that these were approved with conditions on 12 October 1987. It also reported that Wimpy bought 18 acres of Enbrook Park in 1988 for £6m and submitted its own application to build flats and houses.
Then came the early-1990s twist. According to Shepway Vox, the housing-market drop after Black Wednesday halted further development, the grounds were sold back to Saga in 1993, the old building was delisted and demolished, and the present Saga headquarters followed. This is the bit where local planning history stops sounding like a dry committee report and starts sounding like a hostage note written on headed paper.
Shepway Vox has previously reproduced a 1993 Folkestone Herald quote in which Sir Roger De Haan, then Saga’s group chairman, said: “We may have to move out of Shepway altogether which is the last thing we want to do.” He added: “We would be very reluctant to move to another district, but we may have to if we don’t get [planning] permission at Enbrook. That’s not a threat, just sheer reality.” Readers may decide for themselves how much weight the phrase “not a threat” was carrying that day.
The planning permission for the new Saga headquarters was later granted on 12 January 1996, after the planning notice for application 95/0181/SH was published on 14 March 1995 and granted permission on 12 Jan 1996. So, when Enbrook is presented today as a site whose future must be carefully reimagined, it is worth remembering that reimagining Enbrook is practically a local tradition. The place has been a corporate campus, a parkland argument, a housing prospect, a conservation anxiety and a useful reminder that “long-term sense” tends to arrive wearing the clothes of financial necessity.
The ownership and influence point matters too. Sir Roger De Haan – pictured – is not some decorative name from Saga’s sepia-tinted past. Saga’s own board biography says he is the son of founder Sidney De Haan, joined the business in 1966, became managing director in 1976, then chairman and chief executive from 1984 until he sold the company in 2004, before returning as non-executive chairman in 2020. Reuters reported in April 2025 that Saga chairman Roger De Haan was the company’s biggest shareholder and had raised his stake to 27%. Saga’s 2025 AGM noticerecorded him at 26.98% of voting rights as at 13 May 2025. So yes: he is the single largest shareholder, by a very considerable margin.
That does not make the current proposal wrong. It does mean it should be scrutinised properly. If Saga says homes are needed to fund the repair of The Pavilion, then residents are entitled to ask how much repair is needed, what options have been tested, how much housing is proposed, what would be protected, what would be lost, and whether the community benefit is guaranteed or merely laminated. A “vibrant space” is not a planning condition. Nor is “renewed commitment to Folkestone” a substitute for clear numbers, binding promises and an honest assessment of impact.
The company says the main office and car park would remain, along with woodland trails and terraced lawns in front of The Pavilion. That is welcome, but the phrase “under-utilised parts of the estate” deserves a large red circle around it. Under-utilised by whom? For what purpose? By corporate occupancy spreadsheets, land can look spare. To residents, parkland, green setting, heritage character and breathing space can look very much in use, even when nobody is monetising it per square foot.
So the real question is not whether Saga should be allowed to maintain and adapt its estate. Of course it should. The real question is whether Folkestone and Sandgate are being invited into a genuine conversation, or simply being warmed up for the latest episode in a long-running Enbrook property drama. Because this story did not begin in 2026. It runs through 1987, 1988, 1993, 1996, 2021, 2023 and now this latest “nothing has been decided” consultation. At Enbrook Park, nothing may be decided. But quite a lot has been tried.
